Children and television advertising

7/28/2019 Children and television advertising

1/48

Children

and televisionadvertising

A critical study ofinternational research

concerning the effects ofTV-commercials on children

Report 1994/95:8

BY ERLING BJURSTRM

SWEDISH CONSUMER AGENCY


2/48

CHILDREN AND TELEVISION ADVERTISING

Second edition 2000First edition 1994

Swedish Consumer Agency, 1994ISBN 91-7398-456-8Layout: Lena Blsj

Translation: InterverbumPrinted at Lenanders Tryckeri, Kalmar, 2000


3/48

FOREWORDFOR SOME YEARS now, television advertising has been an established form of advertising in

Sweden, and IV advertising reaches children too. They watch commercials intended for adults

and they watch commercials aimed at children on the satellite channel TV3.

BUT ADVERTISING aimed at children is not allowed on Swedish terrestrial television. The

ban is laid down in Swedens broadcasting legislation with the following wording: A

commercial with advertising that is broadcast during commercial breaks on the television mustnot have the purpose of attracting the attention of children under 12 years of age.

THE BAN APPLIES in practice toTV4, which can now be viewed in 98% of Swedish homes

and which is so far our only terrestrial commercial TV channel.

THE REASON for the ban is not hard to understand. Children are children; they are trusting

and naive. The techniques at the disposal of TV advertising carry considerable impact. Thegripping sequences of images in TV commercials reach large numbers of children at the same

time and so can create a stronger pressure to buy.

THE GROUND RULES for advertising laid down by the International Chamber of Trade

include special rules concerning children. These rules were considered to be necessary because

children lack experience and are not always able to identify advertising or to perceive it as

pressure to buy.

SO WHEN a product and its trademark are presented on theTV in the form ofashortcartoon

with an exciting story line it is not easy for children to be critical or even to identify the purpose

of the amusing cartoon.

TV COMMERCIALS alongside childrens programs must today be considered the most

effective form of advertising when it comes to reaching large groups of children. Consequently,

powerful financial interests are seeking to have the ban on advertising to children on terrestrial

Swedish TV removed. Indignant voices demand proof that TV advertising for children isharmful. Sometimes reference is made to research that is claimed to prove the opposite,

namely that advertising for children is a good thing.

WHAT DOES RESEARCH in the field have to say on the subject? We asked sociologist

Erling Bjurstrm to study and evaluate international research on children and TV advertising,its influence and its effects. This does not mean that we want to maintain that research results

are of crucial significance for decision makers where TV advertising for children is concerned,but research does provide us with greater knowledge of the field as a whole. An evaluation of

the research done and referred to can also tell us about the quality of the research.

HOWEVER, the question of children as a target group for TV advertising must be seen as

a question of ethics and morality, a question that has to do with our view of children and

childrens needs in our society.

WHO NEEDS advertising for children? Children? Parents? Companies? The owners of TV

channels? Who benefits by it? And whose needs should we put first?

The National Swedish Board for Consumer Policies

October 1994


4/48

CONTENTS

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

THE EFFECTS OF ADVERTISING 5

Research into advertising 7

Drawing conclusions from research 8

Effects research 10

Cause and effect 13

Media and advertising research 14

TV advertising and children 18

THE EFFECTS OF TV ADVERTISING ON CHILDREN 20

The ability of advertising to attract childrens attention

Childrens ability to distinguish between advertising and programmes

Childrens ability to understand the purpose of advertising

Childrens interpretations of TV advertising

The influence and effects of advertising

The influence of TV commercials on childrens purchasing

behaviour and the demand for goods and products

Values and attitudes

22

25

27

29

31

Consumption ideology and materialism

Eating habits and nutritional awareness

Alcohol and tobacco

Gender roles and ethnic differencesViolence

Consumer socialisation - knowledge and expertise

Short-term and long-term effects

33

35

35

36

37

3839

40

41

Chapter 3 THE COMPLEX EFFECTS OF ADVERTISING 43

REFERENCES 46


5/48

CHAPTER 1

A

THE EFFECTS OFADVERTISINGre we influenced by advertising? Does it make us buy things we dont really

need or even want? Does it affect our needs, wishes, standards and values?

Questions of this type are often among those considered most urgently in

need of an answer when advertising is discussed. When we spontaneously try to answer

these questions we are inclined to take ourselves as the starting point. And, in my

experience, the answers tend to vary between categorical denial that we are influenced

by advertising and a certain degree of doubt. The more or less categorical answers

come from people who have taken up a position eitherfororagainstadvertising. But

a certain element of doubt pervades their answers too.

In many contexts, proponents of the advertising sector have an interest in toning down

the influence andpossible effects of advertising. They oftenpresent it as an innocuous

aspect of daily life, while at the same time they depend on their clients faith in the

ability of advertising to attract the attention of potential customers and influence them.

Similarly, opponents and critics of advertising often exaggerate the ability of adverti-sing to influence us, while their very existence is evidence of relatively widespread

scepticism and even resistance towards it. So in the debate about the effects of

advertising, the arguments used bothforand against it are to some extent contradictory

and paradoxical.

The contradictory and paradoxical aspects are easy to understand if we place the

argumentsfor and against advertising in relation to each other. Opponents and critics

of advertising constantly emphasise its negative effects, whilst those in favour of it

stress itspositiveeffects. In the discussion of the ability of advertising to influence us,the negative is opposed to the positive. The pro arguments of one side are constantly

coloured by the contra arguments of the other side and vice versa.

The greater the ability For the advertising sector, arguments which maintain that adverti-

of advertising to sing does influence us often cut both ways. The advertising sector is

influence us, the of course dependent on these arguments in relation to its clients, but

greater, of course, is the in the debate about the negative effects of advertising they are

likelihood that it willsomething of a trap. The greater the ability of advertising to influence

have negative effects?

us, thegreater, of course, is the likelihood that it will have negative

effects. On the other hand, the argument that advertising onlyinfluences us to a very small extent or not at all is open to the counter-

argument that it is superfluous or harmful. In brief, why should companies spend huge

resources and sums on something that has no effect?


6/48

- THE EFFECTS OF ADVERTlSING -

The arguments for and against the effect of advertising play an important part for both

the proponents and the opponents of advertising, but in different ways. The argument

that we are nut influenced at allby advertising is open to the counter-argument that it

can hardly have eitherpositive ornegative effects. In many cases both those who arefor and those who are against advertising agree that advertising influences us, while

disagreeing about the extent to which this influence is positive ornegative. But thearguments about the positive and negative effects often swing between a variety of

contexts. For example, those in favour of advertising frequently highlight its positive

effects for the economy, whilst its opponents often maintain that it makes us buy

unnecessary things or conveys and reinforces unacceptable standards and values.

In the advertising debate, reference is often made to research results to underline or

strengthen various arguments. It is often assumed that research can confirm or refute

the arguments that are put forward in the debate. However, the field that can be defined

as research into advertising1

gives hardly any unambiguous answers on more generalquestions about the influence or effects of advertising. In addition, it is extremely

difficult to get an overview of the research that has been done in this field. It is unlikely

that even the majority of researchers involved in this type of research have an overview

of more than limited parts of it.

There often seems to be a great need for information about and an overview of the

research that has been done into the influence and effects of advertising. The gap

between believing and knowing is frequently evident when advertising is discussed

publicly. For example, in debates in which I have myself taken part in recent years, the

so-called Coca-Cola experiment has been cited as an argument showing that research

has demonstrated that advertising affects us unconsciously. According to the market

researcher who did this experiment in the late 195Os, it was possible to influence sales

of Coca-Cola and popcorn by inserting, in the newsreels that preceded the feature film

in American cinemas, pictures that could not be perceived consciously, with the

message Drink Coca-Cola and Eat popcorn. The fact that many people cite this

experiment, which, according to available information, was invented, and which

proved impossible to repeat under controlled conditions, as evidence for the sublimi-

nal2

effects of advertising, demonstrates more clearly perhaps than anything else theneed for information about the results of research into advertising.

lInthis context, research

object of its investigations.

into advertising means all research that in any sense has advertising as the

2 Theword subliminal refers to whatever is below the level or threshold of consciousness. According tocompilations of scientific studies of subliminal perception there are no results to confirm that it is possible

to influence peoples actions, behaviour or motivation in the way described in the Coca-Cola experi-

ment (Moors 1982; Rundkvist 1988; Goldstein 1992). The sociologist Robert Goldmann (1992 p 1) is

of the opinion that the idea that advertising can subliminally seduce us contributes only to makingdiscussions of advertising frivolous, since it gives an entirely unrealistic picture of the ability of

advertising to affect us. The attempts of the advertising sector to influence us subliminally have been

described above all in popular books such as Vance Packards The Hidden Persuaders (198 1) and WilsonBryan Keys Subliminal Seduction (1974) and Media Sexploitation (1976). I n thesebooks, the authorsgive plenty of examples to show that hidden messages occur in advertising, but do not discuss at all the

question whether these messages have any effect; instead they tacitly assume that they have).


7/48

- THE EFFECTS OF ADVERTISING -

Research into advertising

The field of research into advertising differs in may ways from other fields of research

in the social andbehavioural sciences . This is mainly due to thepowerful financial and

political interests that are linked to advertising. Research into advertising is divided

into public and non-public (ie confidential) research. The former takes place mainlyat universities and is financed from public funds by government bodies and research

councils; the latter is mainly conducted at private market research institutes which are

either a part of or are associated with the advertising sector. Universities also carry out

market research or various research projects for private clients, who have sole rights

to the results.

The first large private market research institutes were set up in the USA in the 1920s

and 1930s. To begin with they concentrated mainly on surveying new markets for

various products and evaluating the impact of the advertising message, but this was

gradually extended to include more detailed surveys of the values and lifestyle patterns

of different groups of consumers, both actual and potential (Mattelart 1991 p 144 et

seq). Over the past thirty years the research of the largest multinational market research

institutes has grown to include new techniques - the use of electronic equipment to

record the amount of time different individuals and groups spend watching TV

advertising, for instance - and transnational or multi-national research programmes

(known as multicountry research) (ibid.p 151).

Since research conducted by private research institutes is not public, it is impossible

to comment on its results, its quality or its reliability. In general, however, it is a matterofapplied research with the aim ofpredicting the effects of various advertising and

marketing campaigns rather than understanding orexplaining why they have these

effects.

Public research into advertising, that is, research done at universities and financed from

public funds, has developed over a far shorter time than confidential or non-public

research, which is linked to various private market research institutes.

Not until the early 1970s was there any extensive independent

research into the influence and effects of advertising. Right from the

outset, this research was mainly focused on the influence and effects

of TV advertising on children and to some extent on young teenagers.

Of course, only public

research in to advertisingcan be regarded as

independent, in the sense

that it is not controlled

by the advertising sector

or the financial interests

Of course, only public research into advertising can be regarded as

independent, in the sense that it is not controlled by the advertising

sector or the financial interests of its clients. The question that I shall

try to answer within the relatively limited scope of this survey is toof its clients. what extent this research answers questions about the influence and

effect of advertising. The purpose of the survey is to present, as

simply as possible, important research results about the influence and effects ofadvertising and the conclusions that can be drawn from them. They make no claim to

be comprehensive. As I have already mentioned, it is practically impossible nowadays

to obtain a complete overview of the research that has been done into the influence and

effects of advertising. Consequently, the choice of research results presented here


8/48

-THE EFFECTS OF ADVERTISING -

necessarily has a selective slant. However, this is compensated for by the fact that I

have limited the survey to a small number of important and relatively well researched

areas. Still, the criteria that govern which research results have been perceived as

important or fundamental do change, of course. For example, some research results

may be regarded as important or fundamental because they have been confirmed in

several (independent) studies, whilst others may be seen as important because theygave unexpected results or revealed more complex relationships between different

factors and characteristics than previous research.

Since the major part of the research that has been done on the influence and effects of

advertising is directed at the way children are influenced by TV advertising, I have

chosen to limit the survey to that field, but I shall from time to time touch upon the

results of investigations that have been done among young teenagers.

Drawing conclusions from researchResearch results can be presented and discussed in many different ways. Often, it is

only the results of a research process that are given. In most cases nothing is said about

how the researchers reached these results, in other words which methods they used,

how they defined various concepts, what initial assumptions they made, and so on. The

main reason for this is that it is difficult to describe or discuss these aspects of a research

process in a simple way. Generally, it is the results of research that are communicated

to those who are not specialists in a particular field; knowledge of how the results were

arrived at remains with the specialists (cf Bourdieu 1992 p 259). But in scientificcontexts the production process, comprising everything from value-related and

theoretical starting points to the choice of methods, is just as important as the finished

process, ie the results.

Knowledge of how research results have been arrived at is often indispensable when

explaining why different results do not agree. The same applies, of course, when the

need arises to evaluate how safe or reliable different research results are and what

conclusions can be drawn from them.

Knowledge of howresearch results have

been arrived at is often

indispensable when

explaining why

different results

do not agree?

A number of difficulties are associated with the aim of presenting asurvey of the research into the influence and effects of advertising. The

first difficulty arises when bringing together all the research that has been

done. Since research into the influence and effects of advertising (especially

TV advertising) began in the mid- 197Os, more than one thousand studies

must have been done in this field. In addition, research is conducted

within a number of different disciplines (subject fields) and from a variety

of theoretical and methodological starting points.

In general, the results of research in sociology and the behavioural sciences seldom

provide a basis for more definite or unambiguous conclusions one way or the other.What is more, it is often hard to relate research results obtained with different

perspectives and methods to each other and to draw any common conclusions from

them.


9/48


Since the mid-1970s, countless studies have been done of the effects of TV adverti-

sing on children (and to some extent on young teenagers). Most of these studies are

American, so quite a lot is known about how American children react to and areinfluenced by advertising. But the knowledge and research results on which they are

based cannot necessarily be transferred directly to other countries, such as Sweden.

Cultural differences in socialisation, values and standards, as well as other factors, may

mean that children and young people from different countries relate to and are affected

by advertising in very different ways.

The cultural specificity of research results is only one of the difficulties when it comes

to drawing more general conclusions about the influence and effects of advertising.

Another difficulty - already referred to - is that there are different research traditions

and consequently different types of result. Research results reported in the form of

statistical relationships, for example, cannot be compared directly with results based

on ethnographic methods, in-depth interviews or participatory observations, thoughthey need not contradict each other, of course. On the contrary, they often complement

each other.

But naturally it does sometimes happen that research results are contradictory. And as

long as we do not try to explain why they contradict each other it is easy to perceive

research into the influence and effects of advertising as failing to produce results.

This impression is reinforced by the fact that many researchers present their results

with a number of reservations. From the research that has been done so far we cannot

expect a clear or definitive yes or no to the question whether advertising affectsus. In general, the answers that research gives have a limited range and are subject to

many reservations. This is not because there is anything wrong with the research; it

simply because reality is complex. No-one can give a more definitive answer to the

question of the influence and effects of advertising - all we have are many pieces of

a puzzle which together show a part of reality.

Just as in comprehensive media research, a need has emerged in advertising research

foroverviews and summaries of the research that has been done and the results thatexist. The main reason for this need is that different interested parties want arguments

for oragainst the positive and negative effects of advertising. Consequently, the need

for an overview often goes hand in hand with a need to popularise research results and

to clarify what they really mean and what conclusions can be drawn from them.

Almost all the overviews that have been published of the influence and effects of

advertising have been produced either for government authorities in various countries

that work with advertising matters, or by organisations linked to the advertising sector

(Brown 1976; Adleret al 1980; Young 1990; Goldstein 1992; De Bens & Vandenbruaene

1992). Behind most of these assignments lies the politically controversial question of

bans or restrictions on TV advertising directed at children. The primary purpose ofthese overviews has therefore often been to answer the question whether TV adverti-

sing may have orhas negative or even harmful effects on children.


10/48


Research answersThe overviews presented have not given any unambiguous or definitive

answers,but this is not the same as saying that they have not given anymany questions, but answers at all. In certain fields the knowledge is fairly sound; in others

far fromall it is more vague and contradictory. So research answers many questions,

but far from all.

Effects research

Research into the influence and effects of advertising emerged initially as an aspect of

mass communications research in America. The major part of the research that has

been done into the influence and effects of advertising also starts from the scientific

perspective and paradigm that has long dominated American media research. This

perspective is generally called effects research orthe effects model. In its basic form,

this perspective starts from the hypothesis that the messages of the media or the contentthat they convey have an effect on our values, actions or behaviour. This assumption

conceals a stimulus-response model; in other words, the messages and contents that the

media convey are seen as astimulus to which we react in various ways, and this reactionis the response. According to this model, the response is synonymous with the effect

of the stimulus that has been presented to us or conveyed to us via a medium. In its

traditional form, effects research is based on a very simple view of people. Like the

scientific view known as behaviourism, it is interested only in the reactions or

responses caused by various types of stimuli. Human actions and behaviours are

regarded as reactions to stimuli that come from various sources in our surroundings.Interest is directed at the effects (responses or reactions) caused by different types of

media message or media content. Questions of how different individuals or groups

interpret these messages or contents therefore fall outside the scope of this research

approach. This type of questionbelongs mainly in research traditions of hermeneutics3

and cultural analysis, but these have had a very limited influence in advertising

research.

The fundamental effect model used as a starting point by American mass media

research has gradually been developed and extended. Nowadays, for instance, they

often use what is known as a uses and gratifications 4 model or a combination of this

model and the effects model. This model is based on the assumption that people have

different needs which they satisfy with the aid of different media. These may be needs

for relaxation, stimulation, entertainment, information or knowledge. Whilst the

emphasis in the traditional effect model is on the question what the media do withdifferent individuals and groups, the emphasis in the uses and gratifications model is

conversely on what differerentindividuals and groups do with the media. The modelattempts to combine the use model with a more traditional effects model. While starting

from the basis that all people satisfy certain needs by their use of the media, researchers

3 The term hermeneutics comes originally from theology, where it was used to refer to the interpretationof biblical texts, but today it refers more or less to the science of interpretation.

4 Not needed in the English version.


11/48


attempt to determine what effects this has on their values, attitudes, actions or

behaviour. This is why the researchers who work on the basis of a combined uses-and-

gratifications and effects model often talk about circular orspiral effects. An example

of a (negative) circle effect is that children and young people who are aggressive watch

violent films or horror films more than other children, and this contributes to furtherreinforcement of their aggressiveness. In other words, where consumption of media

violence is concerned, effects of this type may give rise to a vicious circle, where the

aggressiveness of certain individuals and their consumption of films containing

violence or horror mutually reinforce each other.

Circle effects may be seen as a special kind of reinforcement effects; in other words,

a particular media use or media content contributes to reinforcing values, attitudes,

needs or physical features of certain individuals. Effects researchers also talk about

indirect and cumulative effects. The media can influence us indirectly in various ways:

on the one hand by determining what we think about, talk about and discuss with otherpeople, even if the media do not directly influence our values or our attitudes; and on

the other by influencing us over time and in complex ways which are difficult to survey

and get to grips with immediately or in a short time. In both these instances we can

speak of indirect effects. The term cumulative effects refers to the influence over time

of several media (messages or contents) or repetitions of the same media message or

contents. For example, the probability of our being influenced by a television

commercial may increase if it is transmitted several times (or decrease, if we tire of it).

Effects may also beshort-term

orlong-term. The

division into short-term and long-term effects is not the same as that between direct and indirect effects, even if most

Most of theeffects

that have been

studied in adverti-

sing research are

short- term.

direct effects are short-term and most indirect effects are long-term.

When we speak of short-term effects in effects research, we are

referring to more or less immediatereactions or responses, whereas weuse the term direct effects when there is no mediating link between the

use of the media and the reactions or responses it gives rise to.

Generally, it is of course easier to study short-term effects rather than

long-term effects. Most of the effects that have been studied in

advertising researchare

short-term, in other words, it has been concerned with theimmediate reactions of different individuals or groups to different advertisements or

messages.

The use of terms such as influence and effects is by no means unproblematic in the

media field - not even in effects research. As mentioned earlier, the effects studied in

5 In media research this effect is usually known as agenda se tt ing. In this context agenda means theperspectives, subjects and questions that are defined as important by the media and by the public that usesthem.

6

The simplest definition of the term indirecteffects is effects that are the result of one or more mediatinglinksor factors between the stimulus presented and the effects that can be distinguished.. In a stricterscientific sense a direct effect is the effect a variable (a property) has when all other independent variables(cause variables) are kept constant. An indirect effect, on the other hand, occurs if one independent variableaffects other independent variables, which in turn affect a dependent variable (effect variable). In effectsresearch, the reactions or changes that only appear in the receivers of a media or advertising message aftera long time are also described as indirect effects (often described as sleeper effects).


12/48


effects research are largely synonymous with the responses (reactions) caused by one

or more stimuli. The responses (effects) may be of different kinds, ranging fromimmediate reactions and behaviours to changes in attitudes and values. In most

contexts it is far from obvious which responses should (and can) qualify as effects. Amajor part of advertising research limits the question of the influence of advertising to

whether different groups or individuals buy or ask for the goods being marketed. In

other words, what is regarded as the effect in this context is synonymous with the

number of people who buy or ask for the goods. At this level, the question of effects

is fairly uncomplicated, even if it may be difficult in this case to determine the stimuli

to which people are responding or reacting. Things become far more complicated when

attempting to determine the effects of advertising on the knowledge, values or attitudes

of different individuals or groups. In these cases, it is a matter both of longer-term

effects and of pinning-down effects that are often hard to measure.

It is plain from the brief outline above that the concept of effects is far fromunambiguous when used in media and communications research. In principle, effects

means all types if changes that can be registered in the uses (receivers) of different

media. Summarising the types of effects referred to here we have:

1) Direct effects- those effects in the receivers that can be related directly to their useof different media, one or more media messages or contents;7

2) Indirect effects - those effects that are the result of mediating links orfactorsbetween the media and those who use them or who receive the message they carry;

3) Short-term effects- more or less immediate reactions or responses in the individualsor groups that use different media;

4) Long-term effects-those changes in the users of different media that take place overa (long) time;

5) Individual effects- short- or long-term reactions or changes that occur in distinctindividuals or on an individual level;

6) Social effects - short- or long-term reactions and changes that occur in a social

categoryorgroup social (level).

The research that has been done into the effects of advertising has in principle been

aimed at one or more of the effects listed above. Some of the research has been based

on the reactions of various individuals or groups to different advertising messages;

some has been concerned with the way in which advertising messages are dealt with

in certain social groups and what effects (indirect or more long-term) this process has.

The more long-term and indirect effects in which interest has been shown as regards

the effect of advertising have to do with values, attitudes, knowledge and purchasing

behaviour.

7 The effects listed here are of course not the effects that are discussed or studied in the media andadvertising research. When discussing advertising, for instance, it is often important to distinguish

between intentionaland unintentionaleffects. I shall be returning to these types of effect in Chapter 2.


13/48

-THE EFFECTS OF ADVERTISING -

Cause and effect

Effects researchers aim forcausal explanations when it comes to defining the effect

of the media on particular individuals or groups. Causal explanations are the most

important type of explanation in the natural sciences - and can also be described as the

type of explanations that scientists are generally seeking. When looking for causalexplanations, the objective is to explain a phenomenon in terms of cause and effect,

in other words they try to trace causal relationships or laws. If you find out why aphenomenon occurs (effect) you have given a causal explanation for it.

Causal explanations assume that it is possible to isolate factors and phenomena from

each other, so that it is possible to distinguish what is a cause and what is an effect. They

also assume that you know about and have control over the factors that are included

in a chain of cause and effect, so that the causal relationships are not influenced by

unknown factors and or factors that cannot be controlled.

The scientific technique that offers the best possibility of determining causal relationships

is the experiment. I n an experimental situation, the researcher can control and changesone or more causal variables8 and determine whether this leads to changes in the effect

variables. The most common form of experiment in the social and behavioural sciences

involves exposing an experiment group to an influence (causal variable) to which a

control group is not exposed. The values of the effect variableare then measured forthe members of each group. In an ideal experiment, the only thing that distinguishes

the two groups is that the experiment group has been exposed to an influence (cause)

to which the control group has not been exposed.

In the social and behavioural sciences it is difficult to use the experimental method.

There are several reasons for this. A fundamental one is that it is far harder to isolate

different factors and phenomena from each other in the social and behavioural sciences

than in the natural sciences. Another reason is the ethical (moral) considerations that

always apply in the social and behavioural sciences because the object of study is

people. Because of these and other factors, the scope for the researcher to manipulate

the causal variable (ie to determine what values it will have) are far more limited than

in the natural sciences.

An additional problem is that the situation the social or behavioural researcher must

create in order to carry out an experiment can easily become unnatural or artificial.

Unlike atoms or molecules, people do not react in exactly the same way to stimuli in

a laboratory and in their natural environment. So it is an open question to what extent

the effects that can be demonstrated in experimental situations or laboratory

environments are representative of or equivalent to those in actual social life.

The explanations primarily used in the social and behavioural sciences can be

described as statistical explanations. Theseare often confused with causal explanations.

8 In scientific parlance a variable stands for a property ofthe object or units covered by a study.

variable derives from the fact that these properties may vary, ie assume different values.

The term


14/48


Cause and effect is a theoretical concept which does not have any equivalent in

observable reality. Statistical explanations that donot form part of a theoretical cause-

and-effect model therefore provide no basis for statements about what cause different

phenomena. The simplest form of statistical explanation is correlation analysis. In itsbasic form, a correlation analysis shows only that there is a co-variation between two

variables (properties). If, for example, a study reveals that children with highly-

educated parents watch television far less than other children, this admittedly shows

an interesting correlation (a statistical relationship), but it does not prove that the level

of education of the parents is the reason for the extent to which the

Ineffects research it is children watch TV. Since it is impossible to control all the factors

hard to isolatedifferent that can explain relationships of this type, there are always unknown

causal factors from (or insufficiently known) factors that may explain them.

each other? In effects research it is both hard to isolate different (possible oractual) causal factors from each other, and to determine the

relationship between cause (stimulus) and effect. The likelihood of success is greatest

in experimental situations, but these have limited validity when it comes to explaining

human behaviour. On the other hand, in studies where other techniques, such as

questionnaires or interviews, are used, the scope for giving causal explanations for the

effects that may be shown are reduced.

Media and advertising research

The major part of research into advertising belongs in the discipline (ie field of study)

known as media research or mass communication research. Particularly where matters

relating to the influence and effects of advertising are concerned, most researchers use

theories and methods developed in media research. But for a long time, advertising

took a back seat in research into the influence and effects of the mass media.

The breakthrough for media research - or mass communications research, as it was

known for many years - came in the 1920s and 1930s. The background to its

development was, on the one hand, increasing unease about the influence and effect

of the new mass media and, on the other, the expansion of social and behavioural

sciences.

The first large media research project, which was conducted in the USA in 1929-32,

The Payne Fund Studies, attempted to answer the concerns directed towards the effect

of the new sound films, especially the effect on young cinema-goers. The Payne Fund

studies also confirmed - at least if we go by the interpretation of their results by the

American press and public - the concerns that were focused on sound films. Filmsappeared to be giving young people new ideas, influencing their moral values, their

concept of reality, attitudes, daydreams, fantasies and feelings. But it was not longbefore the image research gave of the influence and effects of the media became more

and more complicated, as the results of new studies and investigations were presented.

During the 1940s and 1950s a number of studies revealed a far more complex image

of the effect of the media that that shown by the Payne Studies. New investigationsbased on more sophisticated methods, checks and measurements, contradicted above


15/48


all the finding that the effect of the media was immediate, direct and palpable. When,

in the late 195Os, media researcher Joseph Klapper (1060) summarised the results of

research into the effects of the media, he stressed that they were probably significantly

smaller and also more complex than had previously been thought.

Klapper sconclusions were also confirmed by the first major study of the effect oftelevision on children, which was conducted in the late 195Os, and which was

presented in the bookTelevision in the Lives of our Children, where the results of elevenlarge research projects were set out (Schramm et al 1961). The conclusions theresearchers drew, summarising the results of the various studies, were cautious and

subject to numerous caveats. Their main conclusion was that For some children,certainprograms are harmful undercertain circumstances. For other children under

the same circumstances or the same children under other circumstances, the sameprograms may be beneficial or enriching. Formost children, under most conditions,

mostprograms are probably neither particularly harmful nor particularly beneficial

(Schramm et al p 333). This conclusion - which can justifiably be described as vague

- amounted to an attempt to summarise in as general a manner as possible the results

of the studies that were included in the project about the TV-life of children and

earlier research in the field. However, the conclusion did nothing to calm opinion that

had turned against what had become known as TV violence.

During the 1960s there was an intensive debate about the effects of TV violence on

children and young people in the USA. This led the US government to appoint, in the

early 197Os, a committee by the name of the Surgeon Generals Advisory Committeeon Television and Social Behaviour (The Surgeon Generals Committee)9, with thetask of summarising and evaluating research into the effects of TVviolence on children

and young people. It was widely expected that the report the Surgeon General was

commissioned to produce would provide a definitive answer to the question whether

the violence portrayed in American television programs was harmful or harmless

to young viewers. But the report containing the Surgeon Generals conclusions,

published in 1972, came nowhere near giving a definitive answer to the question of the

effects of TV violence; on the contrary, the conclusions in the report were quite vague

and cautious. At the same time as the Surgeon Generals Committee stated that there

was nothing to indicate that TVviolence had a distinctly harmful effect, they found that

there was a preliminary indication of a cause-and-effect relationship between seeing

violence on TV and aggressive behaviour, but this was only true ofcertain children

under certain circumstances (SGR 1971 p 11). In other words the conclusions were

almost identical to those presented in Television in the Lives of our Children ten years

before.

The Surgeon Generals conclusions were presented in a summary report with the title

Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence (SGR 1971). A furthertechnical report presented the results of 23 research projects carried out in the

framework of the Surgeon General Committees work. The studies that were done were

based on a series of different sociological and behavioural science methods, such as

9 The Surgeon General is the United States highest federal official in the area of medicine and health.


16/48


quantitative contents analyses, laboratory experiments, field studies, observation

studies and questionnaire-based surveys. But in the public debate it was almost

exclusively the conclusions of the summary report, with more of a popular science

tone, which was discussed. The report came in for a fair amount of criticism, in some

cases even from the researchers who took part in the projects presented in it. Manyexpected if not a definitive answer at least a clearer answer to the question whether TV

violence was harmful or harmless to children and young people. In view of the quite

considerable criticism, the question was looked into at a senate hearing, at which the

person who chaired the Surgeon Generals Committee drew clearer conclusions from

the report and argued that violence should be limited in certain ways on American

television: Whilst the report of the Committee is cautiously formulated and uses

qualified language which is acceptable for social and behavioural scientists, it is clear

to me that the cause and effect relationship between TV violence and anti-social

behaviour is sufficient to justify appropriate and immediate measures. Data on socialphenomena such as the relationship of TV violence to actual violence will never be so

clear that all social and behavioural scientists will agree on a general statement on a

cause-and-effect relationship. But there is a point at which the data that exists is

sufficient to justify action being taken. We have reached that point now. (Hearings

Before the Subcommittee on Communications of the Committee on Commerce,

United States Senate, quoted in Lowery & DeFleur 1988 p 323).

The debate about and criticism of the conclusions (or, as many saw it, the lack of clear

conclusions) of the Surgeon Generals Committee was based throughout on the briefreport, of a more popular-scientific nature, Television and Growing Up. However,media researchers Shearon Lowery and Melvin DeFleur maintain that three fairly clear

conclusions can be drawn from the comprehensive material presented in the technical

report. According to Lowery and DeFleur, the technical report shows a) that the

content conveyed by TV is saturated with violence; b) that both children and adults are

being exposed to more and more TV violence; and c) that the results of the research

projects conducted in the framework of the Surgeon General Committees work,

broadly support the hypothesis that TV violence increases the probability of aggressive

behaviour. At the same time as they point out that the latter conclusion is supported bothby laboratory experiments and extensive questionnaire surveys, they also conclude

that not all social and behavioural scientists are prepared to agree with it - above all

because it is primarily based on results that give evidence of short-term (and probably

rapidly transient) effects (Lowery & DeFleur 1988 p 323 et seq).

The Surgeon Generals Committee also took up - for the first time in a more broadly-

based manner- the question of the effect of TV advertising on children and young

people. On the recommendation of the committee and with funds allocated to it,

research into the effects of TV advertising in the USA was started, on a morecomprehensive scale than had been the case hitherto. The first resumes of this research

were published by the second half of the 1970s and the early 1980s. But at the same

time it was pointed out in these resumes that research into the effects of TV advertising

was still far too limited for any firm conclusions to be drawn from it (Brown 1976;

Adleret al 1980).


17/48


The work of the Surgeon Generals Committee led not only to a breakthrough for

research into the influence and effects of TV advertising but also contributed - in the

form of recommendations and financial support- to an intensification of research into

the effects of television in the USA. By 1979 a new committee has been appointed by

the American public health authorities (The national Institute of Mental Health. Thisbody was assigned to evaluate and summarise the results of the research that had beendone. The committees report, which was published in 1982 under the title Television

and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties, statedthat the research done in the 1970s confirmed that there was a relationship between TV

violence and aggressive behaviour among children and young people over time.

(Lowey & DeFleur 1988 p 389 et seq). But at the same time it pointed out that thatrelationship is hardly direct and that it is still unclear what lies behind it (ie what is the

cause of it).The report also summarised the results of the research that has been done

into TV advertising during the 1970s. On a general plane it was found that the researchdone showed that reactions to TV advertising varied greatly between different social

categories, but that ageappears to be the most significant characteristic (variable)when it comes to explaining these variations.

During the 1970s and 198Os, media research (and to some extent research into

advertising)

During the 1970s

and 198Os, media

research was

increasingly extended

to attempts to embrace

more indirect

consequences of the

effects and influence

of the media.

was increasingly extended to attempts to embrace more indirect

consequences of the effects and influence of the media (above all

television). Today, most researchers agree that the effect of the media is

both more indirect and more complex than was previously imagined. At

the same time, new areas-

the importance of television for childrens

cognitive (intellectual and knowledge-related) development, for example

- have been opened up in media research, areas in which questions of

influence and effects play a lesser role.

During recent decades, media and communication studies with other

perspectives than those that dominated in effects researchhave become

more common. This is especially true of studies with hermeneutic and

cultural-analytical alignment, most of which start from how different

categories of the public interpret themessages conveyed by the media. The concept ofa passive public receiving different media messages has given way (in effects research

as well) increasingly to the idea of an activepublic which interprets messages that are

polysemic (ie that have multiple meanings). In those areas of media research that are

usually referred to as cultural studies and reception research, ethnographic methods

are often used in an attempt to capture the multiplicity of the reception by different

categories of the public of different media messages and content in a totally different

way from traditional effects studies (Morley 1992). But at the same time as these

studies expand our understanding of how different categories of the public use themedia, interpret and ascribe meanings to different media messages and contents, the

result is often hard to generalise. In addition, thinking in terms of cause and effect is

foreign to the type of studies that start from an interpretative (hermeneutic) perspective.

The answers that these studies give to the question whether the media (including

advertising) influence us cannot actually be understood in terms of effects since they


18/48


start from a perspective of understanding, ie they attempt above all to find a meaning

or significance in poeples use of the media.

The differences between different fundamental perspectives in media and

communications research can be understood most simply in terms of explanation or

understanding. An explanation answers the question why things are as they are;understanding is about something else. The question that forms the basis for aperspective oriented towards understanding is not whybutwhat something means orwhat its significance is.

The latter perspective is still represented only to a very small degree in the field that

can be delimited as research into advertising. This can partly be explained by the fact

that a large part of the research that has been done in the field is aimed at providing

answers to limited questions - often extremely limited ones - about the effect of

advertising on children. In addition, a primary purpose of a majority of the research

projects that have been done has been to determine whether it is possible to demonstrate(either positively or negatively) the effects of advertising on children or young

teenagers - a question that is hard to answer from a perspective oriented towards

cultural analysis or understanding.

TV advertising and children

As I have already stated, it is an almost impossible task to give a total picture of research

into the effects and influence of advertising. Every overview or summary must

therefore be subject to various limitations. In the overview presented here I have

chosen to limit the survey to the effects of TV advertising on children, and to a number

of limited questions. But

to other forms of advertising

in some cases I shall also referto research results that apply

than that on television and also to other age categories than

children (mainly young teenagers).

There are several reasons for imposing these limits. The main ones are that the question

of TV advertising aimed at children is politically controversial, and that, in the light of

research done so far, TV advertising appears to be the form of advertising that has the

greatest influence on children and young people. This is confirmed by research resultsfrom various countries: for instance, in a German study done in the early 1908s, 79

percent of all children in the age range 7 to 12 years answered the question where there

was advertising with on TV (De Ben & Vandenbruaene, p 5). Fewer answers such as

on the radio (46%), in shops (31%), on hoardings (30%), in magazines (28%)

and in newspapers (20%) were given. In another study done in several West European

countries, children in the 7-9 age range were asked to recall and describe where they

had seen advertising for a particular brand of toy. Almost every child (96%) recalled

TV advertising for the toys, whilst only a few (3-5%) could recall advertising in the

form of advertisements in newspapers, catalogues or on hoardings (ibid. 1992p 5).Research results of this type indicate fairly unanimously that children primarily

associate advertising with TV advertising and that this is far better placed to attract the

attention of children than other forms of advertising. There is of course no clear

definition in advertising research of where the boundaries run between children, young


19/48


people and adults. The ages of the children studied using various approaches in

advertising research also vary considerably. However, in most research projects a

boundary for childhood is drawn at 12 years. Correspondingly, people between the

ages of 13 and 17 are referred to as young people in most contexts. But the limits

between what may be regarded as young people and adults are - as one might expect

-much more fluid. In the research described here, the emphasis is on children between

5 and 12 years old. From now on, when I refer to children, I am referring to people who

are under or not more than 12 years old, whereas the term youngerchildren refers to

those who are under or not more than 7 years old. The survey presented here is based

on a review of over fifty studies and the compilations of research results about the

effects of TV advertising already published.

The survey has been restricted to answering the following questions:

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

The ability of TV advertising to attract the attention of children

The ability of children to distinguish between advertising and program content

while watching television

The ability of children to understand the purpose or intention of TV advertising

Childrens interpretations of the message and content of TV advertising

The effect of advertising on childrens demandfor and purchase of different goodsand products.

The effect of advertising on childrens values, attitudes and knowledge.

Only items 5 and 6 deal with the influence and effects of advertising in a stricter sense,

whilst the first four items could be described as prerequisite for TV advertising havingany effects at all. However, the boundary between what are seen as prerequisites andeffect is far from distinct. The fact that TV advertising is capable of holding childrens

can, for example, be seen as a precondition for it having any effects at all, and as an

effect of it .


20/48

C H A P TER 2

THE EFFECT OFTV ADVERTISINGON CHILDREN

T

he fundamental purpose of advertising is to influence us to purchase various

goods and products. In this sense advertising is a phenomenon that aims to

persuade or influence people. In todays society, only political propaganda(which is often also conveyed in the form of advertising) has an equally clear purpose

to persuade. In view of this, it is hardly surprising that questions of influence and effects

occupies a central position in research into advertising.

Todays advertising and marketing are described by cultural analyst Andrew Wernick

(1991 p vii) as a rhetorical1 form that permeates our entire culture. According to

Wemick, advertising nowadays comprehensively influences our society and our

fundamental cultural patterns. But questions associated with the way advertising

influences society and our basic cultural frames of reference go beyond the bounds ofwhat can be studied using the perspectives of advertising research. Many critics of both

advertising and the view of its effects that has dominated in advertising research also

maintain that the most important effect of advertising lies in promoting the modem

ideology of consumption (Ewen 1976; Lee 1993p 90). The central message of

advertising - which is always present whatever goods it is promoting - is to make us

buy, ie consume.

Several researchers with a cultural analysis orientation have accordingly emphasised

the ability of advertising to destabilise and convert traditional cultural ideas by linkingthem with different goods (McCracken 1990 p 77 et seq; Goldman 1992 p 5 et seq).

This also amounts to influence on a societal level and universal cultural patterns, an

influence that is difficult to document with empirical studies.

Most people are probably aware that advertising attempts to influence them in various

ways. On the other hand they are surely not fully aware of why they choose certain

goods in preference to others and the role advertising plays in these choices. Already

in one of the first major research projects about the influence of advertising, carried out

in the USA in the mid-194Os, media researchers Elihu Katz and Paul F Lazarsfeld

found that personal influence (in the form of conversations and discussions, for

example) played a more important role than media advertising when it came to

explaining individuals choice of new consumer goods and decisions about trying

l Rhetoric can be defined as the art of public speaking or persuasion.


21/48

- THE EFFECTS OF ADVERTISING ON CHILDREN -

them (Katz and Lazarsfeld 1955). The results appeared to confirm the two-step

hypothesis (two-step flow of communication) which was originally formulated on thebasis of the results of a comprehensive study of political choice behaviour, according

to which media messages are spread in two steps: first to local opinion leaders who

oriented themselves towards the media (including advertising) to a greater extent than

others and who then in turn spread the information via personal contacts.. In other

words, personal influence appeared to have a greater effect than direct contact with

advertising in the media in explaining why the people who took part in the study chose

certain goods in preference to others. However, in the light of the strict quality criteria

applied to todays social science studies, Katz and Lazarsfelds investigation suffers

from a number of theoretical and methodological weaknesses2. At the same time as the

study - together with several others - contributed to researchers being increasingly

interested in the indirect effects of the media, there were shortcomings in, for example,

the selection on which it was based (only women were included) and in the statisticalanalyses that were done.

However, the studies that were intended to reveal different communication flows

were not followed up to any significant extent by advertising research. So the research

done over the past three decades has scarcely given us any more detailed answers than

those of the 1950s and 1960s to the question whether we are influenced to purchase

different products and services more or less by advertising than by people around us.

In general, the available advertising research does not seem to explain how adults areinfluenced by advertising in its various forms. This is of course related to the fact that

research has primarily been directed towards children (and above all young teenagers).

However, individual studies have shown that there is a relationship between the extent

to which adults3are exposed

4to different advertising messages and their purchases of

the goods extolled in these messages. (Lowery & DeFleur 1988 p 413). Still, the

relationships vary from relatively weak to relatively strong, and in some studies no

relation of this kind has been found at all. Similarly, studies among American young

people5have shown that TV advertising has a noticeable but hardly overwhelming

influence on their behaviour and ideas about different categories of goods and

products (ibidp 4 12). Here, noticeable means relatively weak relationships betweenyoung peoples exposure to TV advertising and their ideas about and inclination to

purchase different goods. However, it would not appear possible to draw any more far-

reaching conclusions from these studies since they are based on relatively inexact

*Even so, subsequent studies carried out towards the end of the 1940s and during the 1950s and whichare more theoretically and methodologically sophisticated do broadly confirm the results of the Katz andLazarsfeld study) Merton 1968 p 441 et seq; Nowak et al 1968 p 19? et seq; Lowery & DeFleur 1988 p209 et seq).

messages.Bu t these studies are only marginally concerned with the spread of various advertising

3

Here, adult means people over 17 years of age.4 The term exposure means that different individuals have the opportunity to become aware of anadvertising message. Adequately measuring exposure poses a number of problems, however. In mostcases, methods are used that are aimed at determinin g whether a person has noticed or remembers anadvertisement or a TV commercial.

s Here, in most cases, young people means people in the 13-17 year age range.


22/48


definitions and measures of the extent to which young people have been exposed to TV

advertising6, and since they do not provide decisive evidence that it is the advertising

and not other factors that lie behind the young peoples interest in the various categories

of goods and products.

There has been far more research into how children are influenced by TV advertisingthan into its effects on young people and adults. One significant result of this research

is that children, especially young children, literally believe what advertisements say

One significant result

of this research is that

children, especially

young children,

literaly believe what

advertisements say

about products.

about products. For example, in a laboratory experiment children in the

4-7 year age range were shown a commercial for Cocoa Pebbles

breakfast cereal in which the cartoon figures Fred Flintstone and

Barney Rubble declared that the cereal tastes chocolatey enough to

make you smile. When the children subsequently explained why they

wanted to eat Cocoa Pebbles cereal, two-thirds of them said it was

because of the taste of chocolate, three-fifths said it was because itwould make them smile, and more than half because Fred and Barney

liked them. (Lowery & DeFleur 1988 p 411). Several studies

correspondingly confirm that young children in particular are nut critical ordo notquestion the messages conveyed by advertising. I shall return to these studies later,

when I deal more systematically with part of the research that has been done into the

effect of TV on children.

The ability of advertising to attract childrens attentionThe first question to arise where the effect of TV advertising on children and young

teenagers is concerned is how much advertising is conveyed to them via the television.

Surprisingly there are no more precise details of the extent to which different agegroups are exposed to TV advertising. The estimates that have been made are based on

the time for which different age groups watch TV, and from this the number of

commercials they have been exposed to is estimated.

The estimates made have given different results. American estimates of the number of

commercials children are exposed to via television usually vary between 20 000 and25 000 per year (Adler 1980; Geis 1982; Lowery& DeFleur 1988 p 411; Riecken &

Yavas 1990). However, in isolated cases the estimated figure has been as high as 40 000

per yearCondry 1989). These estimates were made during the 1980s and against the

background of investigations that provide evidence to show that the number of

commercials per hour on American television increased significantly towards the end

of the decade. They provide a strong indication that American children are today

exposed to more than 25 000 commercials per year via television (cfKinkel& Roberts

199 1). But it cannot be concluded from this that the time for which American children

are exposed to advertising has increased over the past decades. According to availabledata, the number of commercials on American television has increased over the past

decades, but the length of the commercials has decreased (Barcus 1980; Goldstein1992 p 4 et seq).

6The majority of the studies are based on the time the young people

extent to which they actually notice orwatch different commercials.

spend watching TV and not on the


23/48


It is important to emphasise the roughness of the estimates on which the figures for

exposure of American children to television are based. It is also difficult to assess how

reliable the estimates are, since the calculations and limitations they are based on have

not been reported in detail. For instance, it is not clear from the reports that have been

presented whether the calculations relate to all commercials on American television oronly to those directed at children.

So the estimates that have been made of American childrens exposure to TV

advertising do not give a picture of the extent to which they actually watch it ornoticeit. It is also important to note that the estimates were made in the USA. In general,American children watch much more television than Swedish children. Whilst

American children watch TV for just over fout hours a day on average, the corresponding

figure for Swedish children is about two hours (von Felitzen et al 1989; De Bens andVandenbruaene 1992 p 15; Schyller 1992).

Already at an early stage, much of the research into advertising was aimed at

establishing what features of advertising control and attract our attention. In thisresearch it has proved difficult in many ways to measure the phenomenon to which

the term attention applies. Somewhat simplified, the problem is due to the fact that wecan pay different amounts or degrees of attention to something. Researchers attempting

to isolate the factors that direct our attention towards different advertising messages

mainly used the S-O-R model, where S stands for stimulus, 0 for organism and R forresponse. In this context, the concept of organism stands for different properties of

the individual receiving the message. From this basis, research has mainly been aimed

at determining how features of different advertising messages (the basic stimulus),

features of the individuals (recipients) exposed to it, and the environment (otherstimuli) around them, control attention to TV advertising.

Summing up the research carried out on the above basis, it shows in a general manner

that features of the advertising, the recipients and their environment influence indifferent ways the extent to which TV advertising is able to attract the attention of

children. As far as features of different TV commercials are concerned, several studies

. . .younger childrenperceive the repetition

as enjoyable and

meaningful in its own

right -more or less in

the same way as they

like to hear the same

story or see the same

film time after time.

have shown that both theirform and theircontent control the extent to

which children notice them (see, for example, Wartella 1980; Calvert& Scott 1989; Condry 1989 p 213 et seq; Scott 1990).

Several researchers point out that the content of TV commercials must

not be too complex, but at the same time something new must be

introduced to maximise the likelihood of attracting childrens attention

(Rice et al 1983 p 38; Rolandalli 1989 p 73 et seq; De Bens andVandenbruaene 1992 p 21 et seq).

Most of the research has involved observing childrens reactions to

different TV commercials. However, many researchers argue that theability of TV advertising to attract childrens attention does not change

- or take a serious form - until a commercial has been repeated several times. Some

of these researchers also maintain that younger children (up to five years old) perceive

the repetition as enjoyable and meaningful in its own right - more or less in the same


24/48

-THE EFFECTS OF ADVERTISING ON CHILDREN -

way as they like to hear the same story or see the same film time after time (Winick &

Winick 1979 p 157 et seq; De Bens and Vandenbruaene 1992 p 22 et seq). But it is far

from clear what effect such repeated transmissions have on young children. Whilst

some research results indicate that the commercials lose their novelty value and

younger children (like older children) lose interest in them, others indicate that therepetition increases childrens expectations and consequently their attention to the

commercials (Winick & Winick 1979 p 84 et seq; De Bens and Vandenbruaene 1992

p 221).

However, a number of studies have shown that the ability of TV advertising to attract

childrens attention varies greatly depending on their age. Disregarding sophisticated

details, the results of these studies largely agree. In general, the ability of TV

advertising to attract childrens attention decreases with increasing age (Greeret al

1982; Liebert &Sprafkin 1988 p 165 et seq; Young 1990 p 56 et seq). However, if theresults of a number of different studies are taken together, there is no clear indication

that any other characteristics of children, apart from their age, influence the ability of

TV advertising to attract their attention (Anderson & Field 1983; De Bens and

Vandenbruaene 1992 p 25 et seq).

Several studies have pointed out that the environment of children itself is an important

factor for the extent to which they notice TV advertising. Some studies have indicated

that childrens attention is affected depending on whether they are watching TV alone,

with their parents or with other children of the same age. Similarly, other studies have

indicated that their attention depends on whether they are playing, eating or occupiedwith something else while watching TV. Generally it is assumed that these factors

contribute to reducing childrens attention to TV advertising, but as far as I have been

able to determined, there are no studies that confirm this (see, for example, Dorr 1986;

De Bens and Vandenbruaene 1992 p 27).

One weakness of most studies of the extent to which TV advertising is able to attract

childrens attention is that they are based on observations in artificial (laboratory)

environments. Even if the environments in which the observations were made to

appear realistic they differ in some way from those in which the children do most of

their TV viewing. It is therefore scarcely possible to generalise the results of these

observations for the natural viewing environments of the children. And even if this is

disregarded, in most cases it is only possible to draw very limited conclusions from the

studies that have been done of childrens attention to TV advertising. The fundamental

reason for this is that they are often based on a small number of very simple stimuli

which are manipulated in various ways so that their effects, ie changes in the childrens

attention, can be registered. Despite this, the studies that have been done indicate that

the ability of TV advertising to attract the attention of children varies quite markedly

with their age.

The fact that TV advertising (or individual TV commercials for children) is able to

attract childrens attention can be regarded as a form of influence, and aprecondition

for TV advertising influencing them at all. If commercials fail to attract their attention,

it is not likely that they will influence them in other respects. On the other hand, a TV


25/48


commercials that succeeds in attracting childrens attention does not necessarily

influence them in other ways. Attention can, as media researchers Els de Bens and Peter

Vandenbruaene found, be seen as a necessary but not sufficient condition for TVadvertising having an influence on children, young people and adults. (De Bens and

Vandenbruaene 1992 p 28). In other words, there is no direct link between the attention

children give to TV advertising and the effect it has on them in other respects.

As can be inferred from that conclusion, many of the results of research into the ability

of TV advertising to attract childrens attention can be considered trivial. The most

general conclusion that can be drawn is that there are several factors which affect the

amount of attention children give to TV advertising, but that it is impossible to isolate

more exactly the significance of every individual factor.

Childrens ability to distinguish betweenadvertising and programmes

One of the questions that has been at the centre of advertising research since the 1970s

is to what extent and at what age children can tell the difference between commercials

and programmes when they watch television. The reason why this particular question

is central to advertising research is that it is directly related to the politically

controversial question whether TV advertising directed at children ought to be banned

or regulated, and that (like the question whether children understand the purpose or

intention of advertising) is laden with ethical (moral) complications. Against thisbackground, both government authorities in various countries and private consumers

have financed relatively large research projects to determine whether and at what age

children can distinguish the program content of television broadcasts from the

commercials.

As several researchers have pointed out, there is no direct link between childrens

ability to tell the difference between commercials and programmes on television and

The fact that child-

ren can distinguish

between commercials

and programmes does

not mean that they

understand the

purpose of TV

advertising.

their ability to understand the purpose of TV advertising. The fact that

children can distinguish between commercials and programmes does

not mean that they understand the purpose of TV advertising. But the

converse is true: if children do understand the purpose of TV advertising

they can also tell the difference between commercials and programmes.

Many critics of advertising and many researchers have maintained that

the boundaries between advertising and programmes on television and

the content conveyed by other media (such as music videos) have

become more and more diffuse and unclear in recent decades (see

Bjurstrm 1991; Goldman 1992; Bjurstrom & Liljestam 1993; Lee

1993). The most important difference between the advertising and the program contentconveyed by television is that advertising always tries to influence us to buy goods or

products. In other words, the difference lives above all in the different purposes ofprogrammes and advertising. Needless to say, this difference is not always reflected -

as many have pointed out - in the formand content of the advertising or the


26/48


programmes. If children do not understand the purpose of TV advertising, everything

indicates that they depend on its form or content to distinguish it from the programme

content of television.

The research that has been done gives quite clear evidence that childrens ability to

distinguish between the advertising conveyed on television from the programmedcontent does not coincide with their being able to understand the purpose of TVadvertising (Young 1990 p 60 et seq; De Bens and Vandenbruaene 1992 p 41).However, the studies carried out do not show precisely which features of TV

advertising enable children to distinguish between it and programmes, but there is

much evidence that the appearance of cartoon characters in TV advertising generally

makes it harder for children to make this distinction, whilst clear visual and auditivesignals when commercial break begins and ends make it easier for them to tell the

difference (Palmer & McDowell 1979; Dorr 1986 p 56; Kunkel 1988; De Bens and

Vandenbruaene 1992 p 39 et seq).

The research into the age at which children can tell the difference between television

advertising and programme content has not been entirely conclusive. According to

some studies, some children can distinguish between advertising and programmes as

early as 3 to 4 years old, but other studies indicate that this ability does not developed

to age 6 to 8. However, almost all studies indicate that this ability is fully developed

in all children at the age of 10.

One explanation for the lack of agreement of the results may be that different methods

were used in different studies. All studies in which the researchers observed whetherthe attention of children watching television changed at the transition from program-

mes to commercials, report that the ability to distinguish between the two develops at

a relatively early age, whilst studies based on interviews report that this ability does not

develop until children are older. In other words, the consistent difference between the

results of these kinds of study probably shows that the choice of investigation method

has influenced the result obtained.

Both methods - observations and interviews - used in the studies of childrens ability

to distinguish between advertising and programs have their advantages and drawbacks.There is much evidence to show that children - especially younger ones - know

things that they cannot express in words. The advantage of the observation method is

that it makes it possible to study the reactions of very small children to TV advertising

without the need for them to verbalise what they know or feel. The drawback is

of course that it is often doubtful whether what the researcher observes is indeed

reactions to the childrens ability to distinguish between television programme content

and commercials. In other words it is far from self-evident that changes in childrens

attention when the television programme content is replaced by commercials can be

interpreted as showing that they have a cognitive ability (intellectually and in terms ofawareness) to distinguish between programmes and commercials. The main advantage

of the interview method is that it gives a more detailed understanding of (and more

reliable knowledge of) childrens ability to distinguish between childrens ability to

distinguish between programmes and commercials when watching television.


27/48


Although there are differences between the results of different studies, it would

nevertheless seem that we can draw more general conclusions from them about

childrens ability to distinguish between programmes and commercials. Whilst some

children possess a cognitive ability to distinguish between advertising and programs

as early as age 3 or 4, in most children this ability does not develop until the age of 6

to 8, and it is only by age 10 that practically all children have developed this ability.

Childrens ability to understand the purpose of advertising

Most researchers agree that childrens ability to understand the purposeorintention ofTV advertising is one of the most important prerequisites for them to be able to develop

a critical or questioning attitude to it. For example, evidence from many studies

indicates that it is not until children have understood the purpose of TV advertising that

they question whether the image advertising gives of a product is true or false, ieform a view about how true the advertising is. (Dorr 1986 p 38 et seq; Young 1990 p

71)..

A number of complex questions arise when determining the age at which children

develop an understanding of the purpose of TV advertising. The most fundamental

question is what it means to understand the purpose of TV advertising.

Children do not Children do not either fully understand the purpose of TV advertising

eitherfully under- or not understand it all; reality is not like that. Understanding is -in this

stand the purpose ofas in other cases - something that develops gradually. In the light of this,

TV advertising or notit is hardly surprising that the criteria for what is meant by understan-

understand it all;ding the purpose of TV advertising differs significantly from one study

reality is not liketo another. However, according to media researchers Els De Bens and

Peter Vandenbruaene, most studies undertaken since the mid-1980s

that. have been based on the requirement that a child should understand 1)that the interests of the people who made the commercial are different

from those of the intended audience; 2) that advertising tries to persuade the people it

addresses; 3)that messages of persuasion are not objective; and 4) that messages of

persuasion differ from messages that can be categorised under headings such asinformation, education or entertainment, and must be evaluated differently (De Bens

and Vandenbruaene 1992 p 44).

Even so, there are still major variations in the meaning attached to the expression

understanding TV advertising from one study to another. Some studies require only

that children should understand that the purpose of commercials is to sell, whereas

in others they must say that the people who produce the commercials pay the TV

companies to transmit them (Wartella 1980; Macklin 1987). In view of this, it is highly

probable that the different criteria used to isolate childrens ability to understand the

purpose of TV advertising have influenced their results. In addition, the use of

different methods of investigation, such as different tests or interviews, has given

different results for the age at which children can understand the purpose of TV

advertising. There is ample indication that the definitions and the methods used in the

studies have influence the results.


28/48


Some studies - above all those in which non-verbal test methods were used - have

reported that some children understand the purpose of the advertising that appears on

television as early as 5 years ofage7(Macklin 1987 p 231 et seq;Liebert & Sprafkin1988 p 169; Young 1990 p 76 et seq).However, these results are not confirmed by themajority of the other studies. There is much evidence that it is only by the age of 8 to

10 that mostchildren have developed a fundamental understanding of the purpose ofadvertising (Blosser &Robbins 1985; Brucks et al 1988; De Bens and Vandenbruaene

1992 p 45 et seq). Lookingat those studies in which a distinction is made between

different degrees ofunderstanding of the purpose of advertising, it would appear thata more complete understanding develops only after the age of 12 (Blosser & Roberts

1985; Leibert & Spafkin 1988 p 169; Kunkel & Roberts 1991; De Bens and

Vandenbruaene 1992 p 46 et

Documents

Children and television advertising